Horror Movie Discussion #48 - Dawn of the Dead (1978)

[Alien Redrum]

IMDB Synopsis:

Following an ever-growing epidemic of zombies that have risen from the dead, two Philadelphia SWAT team members, a traffic reporter, and his television-executive girlfriend seek refuge in a secluded shopping mall.

(Suggested by Alien Redrum.)

[Alien Redrum]

Hands down my favorite horror movie. Take away the stupid pie fight sequence and it's perfect. Highly recommended.

[19itmicmac]

Not my favorite but definitely in my top 10, highly recommended. On a side note, this film is what spurred Fulci to make Zombi, which is meant to be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead.

[shiki-jitsu]

Not my favorite but definitely in my top 10, highly recommended. On a side note, this film is what spurred Fulci to make Zombi, which is meant to be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead.

Fuck the pie scene. Worst scene ever.

[DJBenz]

On a side note, this film is what spurred Fulci to make Zombi, which is meant to be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead.

Uh not really. Dawn of the Dead was released as Zombi in Italy. Fulci released Zombi 2 (Zombie/Zombie Flesh Eaters) to cash in on the popularity of Romero's film. Fulci's is only a sequel by way of the '2'.

I've got a Dutch DVD of this movie that has Dario Argento's Cut on it (shorter run-time, less humour) which is a nice alternative if you've seen the original way too many times (as most of us have).

Highly Recommended. In fact, essential.

[19itmicmac]

On a side note, this film is what spurred Fulci to make Zombi, which is meant to be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead.

Uh not really. Dawn of the Dead was released as Zombi in Italy. Fulci released Zombi 2 (Zombie/Zombie Flesh Eaters) to cash in on the popularity of Romero's film. Fulci's is only a sequel by way of the '2'.

I've got a Dutch DVD of this movie that has Dario Argento's Cut on it (shorter run-time, less humour) which is a nice alternative if you've seen the original way too many times (as most of us have).

Highly Recommended. In fact, essential.

Right, but Fulci's film was released as Zombi in the U.S., it gets confusing with some of the Italian zombie films, many have different names for different regions. Fulci did mean for Zombi 2 to be a sequel to Dawn of the Dead.

[TGM]

I like the remake better. suck on that tidbit.

[Spez]

I like the remake better. suck on that tidbit.

^This. Zombie baby wins.

[19itmicmac]

I like the remake better. suck on that tidbit.

The remake was pretty good, not as good as the original but decent.

[Neon Maniac]

I've got a Dutch DVD of this movie that has Dario Argento's Cut on it (shorter run-time, less humour) which is a nice alternative if you've seen the original way too many times (as most of us have).

Highly Recommended. In fact, essential.

Yep, I'm a fan of the Argento cut too. Subtle difference, but it loses a lot of the things that someone should've stopped Romero from doing.

I like the remake better. suck on that tidbit.

Yeah, the remake is good. I'm a big fan of it. I like the characters a lot better, and the zombie action is way better. The mall rocks too. And, if both movies were released today, the remake would be the major motion picture and the original would be the Asylum rip off. All this is sad but true.

However, they weren't released today, and for many years the original Dawn was the preeminent zombie flick, mainly due to a lack of them. So, it's always going to have that unfair advantage over all other zombie movies, no matter how good they are.

This would be a great flick to do for a HT movie night.

[Alien Redrum]

And, if both movies were released today, the remake would be the major motion picture and the original would be the Asylum rip off. All this is sad but true.

I can't agree with this, for a few different reasons.

The main being is...well, you are basically saying if the DotD remake was released before the original, then the original would be a crappy remake. That's not really logical. The '78 version wasn't some fly-by-night ripoff. It was something (relatively) original...or at least fresh enough that it wasn't trying to cash in on something more popular at the time. That's not to say I don't agree with you on some points, but these are two very different movies, with only the zombies an the mall being the similarities.

Plus, if you want to compare the remake to anything, a more accurate representation would be Land of the Dead. It came out the next year, it cost less to make, and it was riding on the success of Dawn. (And it still, percentage wise, made a better profit.)

The remake cost 10 times more than the original. While I definitely liked the new version (other than that stupid baby, it's a damn good flick), who's to say if it would have been nearly as enjoyable with a budget similar to the '78 version? It's apples and oranges.

Sure, the '78 version had a low budget, even for its time, but it was a box office success. It was in the top 10 for that year, raking in almost 200 million on a $2,000,000 budget (both adjusted for inflation). It made more money than The Deer Hunter for crying out loud. By comparison, the remake cost $26 million and pulled in $55 million. I don't know why I looked those numbers up, but it does say something about Romero's film holding more of an appeal to a wider audience then Snyder's. (Again, I'm not shitting on Snyder's version because I really do like it, I'm just saying you can in no way put the original in the same breath as The Asylum.)

I like the characters a lot better, and the zombie action is way better.

Definitely agree on both here. While Peter and Roger crush in the original (more so than any of the characters in the remake), Stephen is a whiny bitchbaby and Francine is rather incredibly selfish. The remake had a more solid, well-rounded cast of characters. And the zombie action was definitely more exciting. That said, I think Romero's Dawn was much more bleak (which I really like about it) and Snyder's Dawn is just a fun popcorn movie.

This would be a great flick to do for a HT movie night.

OMG RIGHT!

[Neon Maniac]

I can't agree with this, for a few different reasons.

The main being is...well, you are basically saying if the DotD remake was released before the original, then the original would be a crappy remake. That's not really logical. The '78 version wasn't some fly-by-night ripoff. It was something (relatively) original...or at least fresh enough that it wasn't trying to cash in on something more popular at the time. That's not to say I don't agree with you on some points, but these are two very different movies, with only the zombies an the mall being the similarities.

First off: No. Stop. Of course it's not logical, it's not a logical comparison. The movies were made decades apart and one is a remake of the other. Take off your wizard cap for a second, Mr. Science and step into the land of Make Believe. What I'm saying is, if you compare the two movies side by side, the remake is going to win. It's a much more enjoyable movie. Another way to say it is: If you take someone who has never seen either movie, had them watch both back to back, chances are they're going to like the remake better.

In a different thread I said that I was pretty sure that Dark Night of the Scarecrow was an Asylum rip off of Batman Begins. You have no problems with that, but you have a problem with me making an analogy of the original Dawn being the crappy Asylum knock off of the remake Dawn. Okay.

Plus, if you want to compare the remake to anything, a more accurate representation would be Land of the Dead. It came out the next year, it cost less to make, and it was riding on the success of Dawn. (And it still, percentage wise, made a better profit.)

Secondly: No. No it wouldn't be. A remake of a film compared to a decades waited sequel? No. Every fanboy on the planet is going to see Land, and they're going to masturbate and see it 9 times. And, many of them are going to boycott the Dawn remake until it's on DVD at their friend's house, because that's what stupid fanboys do.

The remake cost 10 times more than the original. While I definitely liked the new version (other than that stupid baby, it's a damn good flick), who's to say if it would have been nearly as enjoyable with a budget similar to the '78 version?

Yes. Right there. Yes. That's my point and you're not getting it. You're not getting it so much that you're using my point to argue against my point.

That said, I think Romero's Dawn was much more bleak (which I really like about it) and Snyder's Dawn is just a fun popcorn movie.

I'd say they were equally bleak, and the remake had the budget to represent it in an even better way. I agree the remake is a fun popcorn movie. That said, what do you think the original is? Is there a hidden meaning that I'm missing? Is it that we're all consumers or some other claptrap? You know what's bleak? Not the original. How does that end? They fly off into the sunset, we don't know what happens. Maybe they survive, maybe they don't. But we never know. What happens in the remake? They get to the island where they hope to be safe, and they die. That's mother trucking bleak if you ask me.

[Alien Redrum]

I can't agree with this, for a few different reasons.

The main being is...well, you are basically saying if the DotD remake was released before the original, then the original would be a crappy remake. That's not really logical. The '78 version wasn't some fly-by-night ripoff. It was something (relatively) original...or at least fresh enough that it wasn't trying to cash in on something more popular at the time. That's not to say I don't agree with you on some points, but these are two very different movies, with only the zombies an the mall being the similarities.

First off: No. Stop. Of course it's not logical, it's not a logical comparison. The movies were made decades apart and one is a remake of the other. Take off your wizard cap for a second, Mr. Science and step into the land of Make Believe. What I'm saying is, if you compare the two movies side by side, the remake is going to win. It's a much more enjoyable movie. Another way to say it is: If you take someone who has never seen either movie, had them watch both back to back, chances are they're going to like the remake better.

Well, yeah. If you take someone who has never seen The Day the Earth Stood Still and Terminator 2 and watch them back to back, Terminator 2 wins. I know T2 isn't a remake of TDtESS, but they both have robots, so it's close enough, right? That's what I'm saying here, that the remake is almost a remake in name only.

In a different thread I said that I was pretty sure that Dark Night of the Scarecrow was an Asylum rip off of Batman Begins. You have no problems with that, but you have a problem with me making an analogy of the original Dawn being the crappy Asylum knock off of the remake Dawn. Okay.

Straw man. One statement is out and out ridiculous and funny. This wasn't nearly in the same vein.

Plus, if you want to compare the remake to anything, a more accurate representation would be Land of the Dead. It came out the next year, it cost less to make, and it was riding on the success of Dawn. (And it still, percentage wise, made a better profit.)

Secondly: No. No it wouldn't be. A remake of a film compared to a decades waited sequel? No. Every fanboy on the planet is going to see Land, and they're going to masturbate and see it 9 times. And, many of them are going to boycott the Dawn remake until it's on DVD at their friend's house, because that's what stupid fanboys do.

Can't argue that point. It's spot on. I know knuckleheads who were shitting on the remake when the trailer came out. But I still contest you can't compare the original and the remake. They are two different movies that share only three things: title, zombies, and a mall.

The remake cost 10 times more than the original. While I definitely liked the new version (other than that stupid baby, it's a damn good flick), who's to say if it would have been nearly as enjoyable with a budget similar to the '78 version?

Yes. Right there. Yes. That's my point and you're not getting it. You're not getting it so much that you're using my point to argue against my point.

You are explaining it poorly then, because I'm still not getting it. You say compared side by side, the remake is better. I say you can't compare the two because they are too different to do so. Different times, different budgets, different movies.

That said, I think Romero's Dawn was much more bleak (which I really like about it) and Snyder's Dawn is just a fun popcorn movie.

I'd say they were equally bleak, and the remake had the budget to represent it in an even better way. I agree the remake is a fun popcorn movie. That said, what do you think the original is? Is there a hidden meaning that I'm missing? Is it that we're all consumers or some other claptrap? You know what's bleak? Not the original. How does that end? They fly off into the sunset, we don't know what happens. Maybe they survive, maybe they don't. But we never know. What happens in the remake? They get to the island where they hope to be safe, and they die. That's mother trucking bleak if you ask me.

Meh, I don't argue that consumerism thing. I don't look that deep into it. I just see the whole zombies heading for the mall because they just happen to be wandering around there. I'm sure that subtext is there, as I've read enough about it, but I don't care enough about it to...care.

I wouldn't consider the ending of the original flying off into the sunset (in that yay! happy days are here again!). Sure they got away from the mall, but you know there nothing promising for them in the future. The tone of each film was far different from each other.

I laughed at the end of the remake. Not so much laughing at it, but more of a "haha. That's fucked up. Get all the way out there, then bam!" There's absolutely nothing subtle about it.

But I always am a little depressed at the end of the original. Yeah, they are flying off, but I get this feeling it's just flying off to another mall, or another place that's just a stop to the next place. In some ways, that's even worse.

[19itmicmac]

Okay Neon, I don't get your comparison of Dark Night of the Scarecrow to Batman Begins, what because there is a character named "Scarecrow" in Batman Begins, that's extremely loose logic. I get that you were attempting to be funny but I don't see where the comparison came from.

I have to agree with Alien on this one, I found the ending of the original DotD much bleaker than the remake and I too laughed at the ending of the remake.

Of course if you sat someone down who had never seen either movie they would like the remake better, it had more money put into it and better effects, imagine if the original would of had those things, it would kill the remake.

I like the fact that you don't really like the characters in the original, it's more realistic to me, people are generally selfish and ignorant. Too many of the characters in the remake are unbelievable and over the top heroic.

[Neon Maniac]

Well, yeah. If you take someone who has never seen The Day the Earth Stood Still and Terminator 2 and watch them back to back, Terminator 2 wins. I know T2 isn't a remake of TDtESS, but they both have robots, so it's close enough, right? That's what I'm saying here, that the remake is almost a remake in name only.

Exactly! Most people have never seen the original, or if they did, it was so long ago that they didn't remember it. I'm not talking about the fanboys, I'm talking about the average movie goer. And you shouldn't look at numbers. Money from the original is like when an album finally goes gold 20 years after it's released. The original box office is spread over decades, while the remake's is about a month or two.

Straw man. One statement is out and out ridiculous and funny. This wasn't nearly in the same vein.

Finally! Thank you. I've been waiting a week and 2 threads for you to make a comment on that.

They are two different movies that share only three things: title, zombies, and a mall.

Right. Completely different characters and all that. It's not a shot for shot remake, it's an update, a reimagining or whatever you want to see it as.

You are explaining it poorly then, because I'm still not getting it. You say compared side by side, the remake is better. I say you can't compare the two because they are too different to do so. Different times, different budgets, different movies.

No, you are getting it and you're actually agreeing with it but you can't get past your idea that they are different movies. Yes, you can compare different things. Would you like a chocolate cupcake or a punch in the mouth? They're completely different, but you like one over the other.

I laughed at the end of the remake. Not so much laughing at it, but more of a "haha. That's fucked up. Get all the way out there, then bam!" There's absolutely nothing subtle about it.

But I always am a little depressed at the end of the original. Yeah, they are flying off, but I get this feeling it's just flying off to another mall, or another place that's just a stop to the next place. In some ways, that's even worse.

A) That's because you're a heartless bastard.
B) That's because Romero didn't know how to end the movie.

I love arguing with you.